Driving without a license or maybe just those driving on a suspended license should result in the vehicle being seized as state property no matter who owns the vehicle unless they can prove it was stolen. What good does it do to suspend someone's license if they are going to drive anyway? DUIs down here drive without a license all the time.

Profedius:Driving without a license or maybe just those driving on a suspended license should result in the vehicle being seized as state property no matter who owns the vehicle unless they can prove it was stolen. What good does it do to suspend someone's license if they are going to drive anyway? DUIs down here drive without a license all the time.

Like my grandpa used to say. You don't need a license to drive. You just need a car.

RandyJohnson:Profedius: Driving without a license or maybe just those driving on a suspended license should result in the vehicle being seized as state property no matter who owns the vehicle unless they can prove it was stolen. What good does it do to suspend someone's license if they are going to drive anyway? DUIs down here drive without a license all the time.

Like my grandpa used to say. You don't need a license to drive. You just need a car.

Yeah, my grandpa said the same thing, except that he added 'and I don't need to glasses, either.' Then he'd get behind the wheel and wonder why everyone was screaming and diving off the sidewalks.

The reality of America: You can get arrested for weed in a lot of places and end up doing considerable time in jail ("you have two ounces, clearly you are a serious drug dealer"). You can rack up DUI after DUI after DUI and they keep on springing you after short sentences. Stories occur only too frequently of someone who has been convicted many times, and then he finally kills somebody. You would think people would be simply outraged and demand that people like this get hard jail time before they can kill somebody. But they don't. Serial offenders keep getting sprung, and it's not on our radar.

First DUI? A hefty fine, a suspended license, and some really obnoxious "education" to drill it into your head that this has to be the last time. Second DUI? 6 months to a year, license suspended for five years after that. Third? Five to ten years, and no driver's license ever again. Fourth? Ten to twenty. Fifth? Thirty to life.

And if you've had a DUI, then you kill somebody while driving drunk, life with no parole.

On top of that, if you've had a DUI, and then you get pulled over shiat-faced drunk, blowing a 0.16 or something, then a very serious sentence. I wouldn't go easy on people who get arrested for 0.08, but I'd be even harsher on people who drive when they're so drunk they can't even stand.

It ought to be made clear that, once you've had your first DUI, you have to make sure you never do it again, and if you're one of those fukitol people who don't care about consequences, then you can spend most of your life in a place where you can't kill somebody with a car.

It's not at all surprising that this took place in Alaska. Unless you live in the city, there is no way for a single guy to function here without a personal vehicle. Once you leave the major population centers, there are no bike paths, no public transportation, and no cabs.

If I lost my license, I'd drive anyways, too. It's either that or completely relocate.

RockofAges:While it's obvious that intoxicated driving is bad, mmkay, your authoritarian solutions aren't helping. People need to wake up and realize that the harder you attempt to legislate behaviour, the more star systems will slip between your fingers.

Suppose someone developed a system where you can could have a drug pump surgically installed which kept the body saturated with Disulfiram, a drug which makes drinking almost intolerable. You give the person a choice of prison vs getting the implant. That way you're not legislating behavior, you're actively modifying behavior, yet the person still has a choice in the matter. Best case, that person becomes a contributor to society rather than rotting away in a cell because of addiction. Worst case, they stop the treatment and have to be incarcerated, just like today.

RandyJohnson:Profedius: Driving without a license or maybe just those driving on a suspended license should result in the vehicle being seized as state property no matter who owns the vehicle unless they can prove it was stolen. What good does it do to suspend someone's license if they are going to drive anyway? DUIs down here drive without a license all the time.

Like my grandpa used to say. You don't need a license to drive. You just need a car.

The way people drive around here you would think that many follow your grandfather's thought process or they have the same life style as the guy in the article.

Kibbler:The reality of America: You can get arrested for weed in a lot of places and end up doing considerable time in jail ("you have two ounces, clearly you are a serious drug dealer"). You can rack up DUI after DUI after DUI and they keep on springing you after short sentences. Stories occur only too frequently of someone who has been convicted many times, and then he finally kills somebody. You would think people would be simply outraged and demand that people like this get hard jail time before they can kill somebody. But they don't. Serial offenders keep getting sprung, and it's not on our radar.

First DUI? A hefty fine, a suspended license, and some really obnoxious "education" to drill it into your head that this has to be the last time. Second DUI? 6 months to a year, license suspended for five years after that. Third? Five to ten years, and no driver's license ever again. Fourth? Ten to twenty. Fifth? Thirty to life.

And if you've had a DUI, then you kill somebody while driving drunk, life with no parole.

On top of that, if you've had a DUI, and then you get pulled over shiat-faced drunk, blowing a 0.16 or something, then a very serious sentence. I wouldn't go easy on people who get arrested for 0.08, but I'd be even harsher on people who drive when they're so drunk they can't even stand.

It ought to be made clear that, once you've had your first DUI, you have to make sure you never do it again, and if you're one of those fukitol people who don't care about consequences, then you can spend most of your life in a place where you can't kill somebody with a car.

I've got a better idea. Let's do away with DUI altogether. That's right, DUI should become a non-crime.

Instead, let's come up with a test of actual reaction time, and make it illegal to drive with insufficient reaction time. If you can drink 10 beers and still pass the test, you're good to go. If you can't pass with NO alcohol in your system, you don't get to drive.

And let's stop treating it as the worst crime ever. No jail time, no matter how many times you do it. Treat it like any other traffic ticket, with a fine. But if you can't pass a roadside reaction time test, you don't get to drive away. The cop can either call someone for you, or give you a ride home.